We are excited to announce that we have now completed post production on
Citizens United, The Movie. And we are now doing film festival
submissions and considering other screening opportunties.
In Citizens United, The Movie, we take on the issues of corporate
personhood
and accountability, money as speech, the remote control drone murder of civliians, and
more.
The new video clip preview is a call to action, dramatizing the moment that the
activists in our story are reacting to the Citizens United supreme court
decision, in particular the 2010 State of the Union speech where the
President addressed it with members of the Supreme Court in attendance.
We open with a hypothetical, but true to their writings and speeches,
conversation between founding fathers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton,
about the propriety of empowering corporations as artificial persons.
We then cut to a modern day TV PR ad for a major defense contractor,
highlighting with this juxtaposition the extent to which corporations
have taken over the concept of "We, The People".
And then we jump right into the middle of our main story about Occupy
America, an activist group mobilizing a movement to amend the constitution
to negate corporate personhood, while they struggle with a government
attempt to entrap a couple of their members in a phony terrorist
plot.
**********
NEW TRAILER FOR THE LAST WAR CRIME MOVIE
We also just posted a fast paced, right to the point new trailer of our first full length feature dramatic film, The Last War Crime movie, which is ready for theatrical distribution now.
In just 60 seconds, you can get the flavor of this ground-breaking production. To find out if our heroine was successful in her mission, you will have to
actually watch the movie, and screeners are now available at the same link below.
We're already discussed at modest length why the Hobby Lobby decision is so
wrong, just in terms of the reading of previous legal precedents and
their definitional terms. So if Alito has no real supporting
authority in the the history of legal jurisprudence, from where
exactly is he deriving his authority?
The sad answer is found in footnote 34 of the Hobby Lobby opinion,
where he cites as a reference a religious tract from 1935, "Moral and
Pastoral Theology," for the proposition that when one person helps
another to commit a sin in any way, even by a non-sinful act, even if
no approval of the sin is implied, it comprises "cooperation" in that
sinning. Indeed, Alito unquestionably believes that any ruling contrary
to his would be precisely such a sin enabling act.
And this, standing alone, is Alito's sole and naked support for the
whole basis for the ruling, that if a corporation provides
comprehensive health care, and if some aspect of that health care
offends the moral precepts of the owners of the corporation, that
doctrine can be imposed on employees of the corporation who do
NOT share those precepts.
Leaving aside the fact that a corporation is not a real person in the
first place (itself a perverted reading of the Constitution), capable of
committing a sin in a theological sense, what is a secular law judge doing
founding his legal opinion on a religious reference?
And the sad answer to that is that Alito is no justice. He is a
religious ringer, put on the bench to impose his moral precepts on
the rest of us, just exactly as he would have the corporate board of
Hobby Lobby impose their dogma on their helpless employees.
Alito ought to show up for work, not in a judge's robe, but in the
ecclesiastical garments of a priest. Because that is what he is,
handing down his rulings by divine revelation, immaculate of any
actual sensible legal precedent.
And what makes this all so transparently clear is that when
challenged by the dissent of Justice Ginsberg as to why other
religious objections could not be made as to vaccines, blood
transfusions, etc, Alito confesses that his decision "is concerned
SOLELY with the contraceptive mandate." (His actual words, opinion p.
46, emphasis supplied.) Only when it offends HIS religious beliefs,
then secular law must fall that way also, otherwise he'll find some
equally ad hoc pretext to rule the other way.
If you happen to agree with his religious result on this one moral
issue, you may applaud this decision on that basis as much as you
like. Just clearly understand and acknowledge the stark fact that it
is NOT a legal decision. It is one strictly from one particular clergy.